Re: Should ucf be of priority required?
On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 04:56:02PM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 04:47:18PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> > That is okay, as long as ucf is around. But as soon as it isn't
> > the purge of a package is succesful while leaving modified files around.
> > So the effect is that a purge does not "remove everything".
> >
> > Do we really want that? Should ucf be 'required' to avoid that?
>
> ucf being priority required is not sufficient. It is still possible to
> remove such a package (mawk is a good example) and therefore you would
> still need to execute ucf conditionally.
You are right. My bad.
> The only way around that is to make ucf essential,
> and I don't think that's a good idea.
What speaks against it? Its basically a mini tool (Installed-Size: 260)
and not making it essential leads to the mentioned situations.
The only bad thing is, that it depends on a tool which is not essential
(debconf) and seems not to be able to render questions without debconf.
Or should we simply not care about packages modifying files (via
external tools) and not reverting those changes when beeing removed?
Regards,
Patrick
Reply to: